if shes turns arouns it would be. I just don't think they would expose her upper thighs, and possibly rear end like that. It's literally too "super hero" like. I am sure she would have something similar to this, just..I don't know, a bit different

Black Panther would do better as a film, with a Fury cameo to hint at a future tie-up. In the current films, I see him more as an ally than a member, and for anyone thinking that Pym is essential, they could always introduce Ultron through Stark. He does robotics too.

I think Elektra and Catwoman ruined the idea of it happening. I don't think it ever will unless a female hero in an ensemble film somehow captures the spotlight.

Elektra and Catwoman failed because both were horrible messes in script and concept, *not* because audiences didn't want to see a superheroine movie. Like all superhero flicks, if you get the right director, writer, and actress, a superheroine movie can pay off.

Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (if Marvel can work around the "mutant" conflict with Fox)

__________________"If you shoot, you're a killer. If you don't shoot, you have a death on your conscience. A death you could have prevented""What kind of a choice is that?""The one I make every time I pull the trigger"

Ok, I know some people will want to kill me for this, but what the hell.

What if they make Carol Danvers the Kree spy who decides to defend the Earth instead of Lawson/Mar-vell? It would expedite her intro into the MCU, explain her powers, cut out the middle man (Mar-vell) and introduce the concept of the Kree into the films. I know it would cut out her backstory but they're probably not going to deal with her alcoholism, her rape or getting her powers stolen by Rogue. And just imagine a scene in which she's a SHIELD agent and the Avengers/SHIELD are overmatched by some adversary and she has to reveal her powers to save them. An interrogation scene would reveal her true self/her powers and the Kree. This could also tie into the Avengers mistrust of her (done in the comics with her alcoholism and her over-zealous nature).

I don't know, I think it could work. But I'm prepared for my public flogging!

By the way, I've read that Carol got her powers when Mar-vell was dying and he transferred them to her, but I know he also died of cancer in the classic Jim Starlin "Death of Capt. Marvel" graphic novel. I know superheroes are resurrected all the time, but I was wondering how Marvel explained these 2 Mar-vell deaths. Would appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

I'd be angry if they did. I don't want either studios doing Pietro and Wanda. They are key members of both teams.

But if neither Marvel nor Fox ever uses the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, we'll never get to see two of the best characters on screen. In Wanda's case, she has to be in the top ten Avengers ever. Neither one of them was aligned with the X-Men when the team began (I'm rather confused as to how they've related to them in recent years) so their absence from those films is a small loss.

Wanda is an Avenger first and foremost, however, and she belongs on the team in the films. As for Pietro, Marvel is moving towards an Inhumans movie for their Cosmic Marvel line-up, and he is a member of the royal family so he should appear with them. The Maximoffs joined the Avengers way back in Avengers #16, along with Hawkeye. Wanda stayed with the team for decades. She will always be associated with the team, no matter how badly various writers have abused her in recent years.

__________________"It’s something that’s easy to take for granted, growing up in the United States as a white male, that my cinematic heroes look like me...It’s something that over the course of these ten years, having a certain amount of power over what type of movies are made and what type of actors we hire, I want everybody to have that feeling. We don’t take it for granted that people want to see themselves reflected in our heroes and our characters." ~ Kevin Feige

Ok, I know some people will want to kill me for this, but what the hell.

What if they make Carol Danvers the Kree spy who decides to defend the Earth instead of Lawson/Mar-vell? It would expedite her intro into the MCU, explain her powers, cut out the middle man (Mar-vell) and introduce the concept of the Kree into the films. I know it would cut out her backstory but they're probably not going to deal with her alcoholism, her rape or getting her powers stolen by Rogue. And just imagine a scene in which she's a SHIELD agent and the Avengers/SHIELD are overmatched by some adversary and she has to reveal her powers to save them. An interrogation scene would reveal her true self/her powers and the Kree. This could also tie into the Avengers mistrust of her (done in the comics with her alcoholism and her over-zealous nature).

I don't know, I think it could work. But I'm prepared for my public flogging!

By the way, I've read that Carol got her powers when Mar-vell was dying and he transferred them to her, but I know he also died of cancer in the classic Jim Starlin "Death of Capt. Marvel" graphic novel. I know superheroes are resurrected all the time, but I was wondering how Marvel explained these 2 Mar-vell deaths. Would appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

Thanks

Public flogging...? Hell, I'll buy you a beer.
That sounds like an *excellent* method to expedite Ms. (Captain) Marvel into the MCU. The comics are retconning her into becoming "Captain" Marvel right now, anyway, so it's possible that's the studio's intent as well.

Mar-Vell fans (all five or six of them) will balk, of course, but he's never been a popular character among fandom, and is instead mainly famous for dying of cancer and spawning a buttload of auxiliary characters (and, peeking behind the curtain, Marvel had/has to do that every couple of years or so to retain the copyright to the name "Captain Marvel" to block DC Comics from giving it back to "Shazam").

But if neither Marvel nor Fox ever uses the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, we'll never get to see two of the best characters on screen. In Wanda's case, she has to be in the top ten Avengers ever. Neither one of them was aligned with the X-Men when the team began (I'm rather confused as to how they've related to them in recent years) so their absence from those films is a small loss.

Wanda is an Avenger first and foremost, however, and she belongs on the team in the films. As for Pietro, Marvel is moving towards an Inhumans movie for their Cosmic Marvel line-up, and he is a member of the royal family so he should appear with them. The Maximoffs joined the Avengers way back in Avengers #16, along with Hawkeye. Wanda stayed with the team for decades. She will always be associated with the team, no matter how badly various writers have abused her in recent years.

Also, amen to this post.
Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are FAR more important to the Marvel mythos as Avengers as they are to the Brotherhood. The only thing the mutant/Magneto angle does is blocks the MCU from using story arcs like Avengers Disassembled and House of M.

Also, amen to this post.
Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are FAR more important to the Marvel mythos as Avengers as they are to the Brotherhood. The only thing the mutant/Magneto angle does is blocks the MCU from using story arcs like Avengers Disassembled and House of M.

Which is a GOOD thing.

Agree 100%. It's a shame that the d-bags at Fox might keep two of the oldest, most influential Avengers from the big screen. For all intents and purposes, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (and Hawkeye) were original Avengers. Hell, they weren't even "revealed" to be Magneto's children until years later...

I'd prefer them to just not use the term "mutant" if that's Marvel's only legal option but we're definitely getting cheated out of some great mythos.

__________________"If you shoot, you're a killer. If you don't shoot, you have a death on your conscience. A death you could have prevented""What kind of a choice is that?""The one I make every time I pull the trigger"

Elektra and Catwoman failed because both were horrible messes in script and concept, *not* because audiences didn't want to see a superheroine movie. Like all superhero flicks, if you get the right director, writer, and actress, a superheroine movie can pay off.

"If you get the right ......."

You could say that for practically any film concept. It's more ambiguous than it is practical. Opening weekend draws for both those films were horrid. The demand is nowhere near it is for male-led superhero films.

Agree 100%. It's a shame that the d-bags at Fox might keep two of the oldest, most influential Avengers from the big screen. For all intents and purposes, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (and Hawkeye) were original Avengers. Hell, they weren't even "revealed" to be Magneto's children until years later...

I'd prefer them to just not use the term "mutant" if that's Marvel's only legal option but we're definitely getting cheated out of some great mythos.

I'd say Marvel should use them in an Avengers sequel and give no explanation at all where their powers come from.

Like this:

Stark: "Okay, I'm impressed. What's their story?"
Fury: "I don't know. They won't tell us. But honestly, I don't care. There are so many people with strange powers around lately... all I care about is that they are on our side."

You could say that for practically any film concept. It's more ambiguous than it is practical. Opening weekend draws for both those films were horrid. The demand is nowhere near it is for male-led superhero films.

Sure, I doubt a superheroine movie will ever make Iron Man or Batman or Spider-Man numbers, based on the unavoidable fact that the majority of male moviegoers don't go see "chick flicks," and that the majority of female moviegoers don't generally go see "action flicks," or "geek flicks." And a superheroine movie actually falls somewhere in between those genres.

But I don't even remotely believe that the dismal box office and critical response to Elektra and Catwoman had anything to do with the fact that a woman was in the lead; it was the fact that they were crappy movies, period. And from a fanboy standpoint, neither movie was remotely true to the actual characters; so people who actually *wanted* to see a movie about Elektra and Catwoman stayed away simply because they knew that the studios were trying to pawn off INOs. I think if Marvel Studios or *any* studio made a serious attempt at a superheroine movie that was true to the character and did a decent attempt at making an entertaining adventure, the audiences would show up. Again, not as large as the fanbase for an Iron Man or Wolverine or Batman, but they could generate a helluva lot bigger box office than Elektra or Catwoman ever dreamed of.

Agree 100%. It's a shame that the d-bags at Fox might keep two of the oldest, most influential Avengers from the big screen. For all intents and purposes, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (and Hawkeye) were original Avengers. Hell, they weren't even "revealed" to be Magneto's children until years later...

I'd prefer them to just not use the term "mutant" if that's Marvel's only legal option but we're definitely getting cheated out of some great mythos.

Fox can't keep Marvel from using Wanda & Pietro because both studios share their rights. Marvel can't mention that they are mutants of that Magneto is their father, but everything else is theirs to use.

There are a lot of creative ways to get around the mutant issue. Magda, the twins' mother, gave birth to them on Wundagore Mountain, where the forces of both science and magic are extremely strong. The fact that their midwife/nanny was the High Evolutionary's creation Bova the Cow-Woman (one of my favorites) is an indication of just how many bizarre influences were at play around their birth. Additionally, Wanda was imprinted by the demon Chthon at birth, which impacted her powers.

Marvel's writers could easily explain away their abilities by saying that while Magda was present her unborn babies were changed by the genetically-engineered microorganisms (or chemicals) created by the High Evolutionary and released near her mountain home. At the same time, Chthon's magic latched onto Wanda and increased her "hex" powers, making them incredibly powerful as well as dangerous. That would neatly resolve the mutant dilemma while also introducing HE and all of his creations, including Adam Warlock, into the MCU.

__________________"It’s something that’s easy to take for granted, growing up in the United States as a white male, that my cinematic heroes look like me...It’s something that over the course of these ten years, having a certain amount of power over what type of movies are made and what type of actors we hire, I want everybody to have that feeling. We don’t take it for granted that people want to see themselves reflected in our heroes and our characters." ~ Kevin Feige

They roster is so vast they could rotate and stagger it and keep the films going for years and years.

How about Marvel films use Enchantress in place of Scarlet Witch?
She, like Scarlet Witch, could start out as a bad guy/threat, but turn good and join the Avengers.
She, like Scarlet Witch, could have a relationship with Vision, and like SW, could have a brotherly like
relationship with Loki (in place of Quicksilver). This could eventually lead Loki and Enchantress to create
Billy and Tommy, magically created children.

Or: they could introduce Scarlet Witch into the MCU to do Scarlet Witch-y things, to take her rightful place in the Avenger pantheon. And introduce Enchantress into the MCU to do Enchantress-y things, to take her rightful place in the Thor rogues' gallery. Like Stan 'n' Jack intended.

Yeah, I don't want Enchantress being one of the Avengers when she's meant to be a villainess. I suppose Loki will join the Avengers next in place of Quicksilver? They'll just overlook the fact he tried to kill them all, conquer humanity and destroy all of New York. As long as maybe Cap can nurture a mentoring relationship with him and Enchantress, and maybe they can be part of Cap's new Kooky Quartet.

__________________

Quote:

Anne Hathaway: "You did not just ask me that!! What a forward young man you are!!! My goodness!!"

Or: they could introduce Scarlet Witch into the MCU to do Scarlet Witch-y things, to take her rightful place in the Avenger pantheon. And introduce Enchantress into the MCU to do Enchantress-y things, to take her rightful place in the Thor rogues' gallery. Like Stan 'n' Jack intended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Yeah, I don't want Enchantress being one of the Avengers when she's meant to be a villainess. I suppose Loki will join the Avengers next in place of Quicksilver? They'll just overlook the fact he tried to kill them all, conquer humanity and destroy all of New York. As long as maybe Cap can nurture a mentoring relationship with him and Enchantress, and maybe they can be part of Cap's new Kooky Quartet.

Yeah, because thats exactly what I meant.
No, actually thats not what I meant at all and I was being sarcastic.
Or was I. You don't know now.
OK, actually what I meant was that she would fill in for Scarlet Witch since she can be in the Avenges and Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver and Magneto are owned by a different studio and they will most likely never ever ever be in the Avenger. Quicksilver was in Wolverine's movie, Magneto was in all the X-Men films, and the concept of Mutants is owned by another studio. So even if Scarlet Witch could be included, which I doubt she could anyway, she would have to not be a mutant, and not be related to Magneto or Quicksilver. So instead of not having Scarlet Witch at all ever, and never having Tommy and Billy's mother (and possibly not having their story be a possibility) and not having Vision have a relationship with Scarlet Witch, maybe just use Enchantress.

But of coarse Loki would still be Loki. Just he would be the brother figure in her life but still be very Loki. For example, in the story were Billy and Tommy are created, Scarlet Witch brings them to life with her powers and later is manipulated by Quicksilver into doing it again. So Instead of that, Loki uses his powers and manipulates Enchantress into using hers to create Billy and Tommy (the "sons" of Enchantress and Vision). It would be part of one of his evil/trickster schemes. And instead of Vision having no love interest maybe he and Enchantress could meet and fall in love (despite her being a "villain").
I never meant that Loki would join the Avengers, I mean why would Loki (even as a kid) join the Avengers (even Young Avengers)? Kidding.
But seriously. I never meant he would be an Avenger. Just would fill in that sort of arrogant, jerky, manipulative brother part of Quicksilver. Enchantress could be close to him like Scarlet Witch was to Quicksilver, sort of like a brother and sister thing. But only she might join the Avengers at some point perhaps.
The actual Brother type character who joins could be the Executioner.

Yeah, because thats exactly what I meant.
No, actually thats not what I meant at all and I was being sarcastic.
Or was I. You don't know now.
OK, actually what I meant was that she would fill in for Scarlet Witch since she can be in the Avenges and Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver and Magneto are owned by a different studio and they will most likely never ever ever be in the Avenger. Quicksilver was in Wolverine's movie, Magneto was in all the X-Men films, and the concept of Mutants is owned by another studio. So even if Scarlet Witch could be included, which I doubt she could anyway, she would have to not be a mutant, and not be related to Magneto or Quicksilver. So instead of not having Scarlet Witch at all ever, and never having Tommy and Billy's mother (and possibly not having their story be a possibility) and not having Vision have a relationship with Scarlet Witch, maybe just use Enchantress.

But of coarse Loki would still be Loki. Just he would be the brother figure in her life but still be very Loki. For example, in the story were Billy and Tommy are created, Scarlet Witch brings them to life with her powers and later is manipulated by Quicksilver into doing it again. So Instead of that, Loki uses his powers and manipulates Enchantress into using hers to create Billy and Tommy (the "sons" of Enchantress and Vision). It would be part of one of his evil/trickster schemes. And instead of Vision having no love interest maybe he and Enchantress could meet and fall in love (despite her being a "villain").
I never meant that Loki would join the Avengers, I mean why would Loki (even as a kid) join the Avengers (even Young Avengers)? Kidding.
But seriously. I never meant he would be an Avenger. Just would fill in that sort of arrogant, jerky, manipulative brother part of Quicksilver. Enchantress could be close to him like Scarlet Witch was to Quicksilver, sort of like a brother and sister thing. But only she might join the Avengers at some point perhaps.
The actual Brother type character who joins could be the Executioner.

Fox owns Magneto, *not* Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Kevin Feige was directly questioned about the status of Wanda & Pietro last year during an interview, and he said that they have a special status. Both can be used in X-Men movies as mutants who are the children of Magneto, but can have no reference to the Avengers or its storylines; *and* Marvel Studios has the rights to use them as Avengers, but without reference to mutants or their Magneto lineage.

So according to Feige, it is entirely possible that, at some point, we wind up with two very different versions of Wanda and Pietro from BOTH studios.